The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-11-27

ton of his duty, The question, then for
you In ronsidcr aud determine IN this ease IT, dld
the defendant In striking thc prosecutor. under
the circumstances, act In excess ol the duty he had
tO perform. aud NJ the authority he was then In.
vested as such policc glitter II hc used grntcr
force or violence than WIS necessary Ia effect and
carry out hi proper dutiUs u the time he would nj
least hc guilty Of assault and battery, greater de
gre ul crime, depending upon the circumstances
would ne authorized in using
moderate dcgrc ui pp~urr iu compel the Prise.
cutnr tu stand back, should De- have been uuduly
forcing himself forward und ih,ryhN vudungcTiug
the lives OF the weaker pyfsuus iu the assembly.
or IL the prosecutor uliCpI ANY resistance Ia the
authority oi the defendant then the defendant
could have used a mon violent dyEpH ui pressure
Ia turp him back aud e. keep his puhIvr place iu
the line of people going iuin the rnom. Hut
does the prupi show il'Ji any nsisirucc WIS
offered IL the authority ul the defendant
beyond that which the uvt ,siiy nt the Usc. that
/, the pressure uf the cr'vl l,hlud the prosecutor
rendered uu hi, PAR absolutely uvNe>ty' ThvW
fore, you have "a decide whether blow struck IN.
der the circumstance as ALLEGED without any nt
tcmpt to UmuNc the pru.urutur hy other means,
was or was not nm exec, of authority which the
defendant exercised ui That moment. You uu
only look tu the prpul In this ease TINT u us u that
which relates tu thv striking hluN on the pyr.ou
Of The prosecutor tu determine The guilt ur limo
/ ccucc ui defendant. aud not ~ to
whether he assaulted other persons On
| tie OCCASION. luu uu 10 give due weight
4 "a the evidence oi ruud character ri the dr
PENDANT as shown 10y the witnesses IN the usf
Evidence of good character b. admitted In criminal
| PROSECUTIONS because The intent with which the
/ act changed us q crime was done isui the p,s"nuc
/ 81 the issue. nnd the prevailing character ui the
defendants mind. ~ eyidrury uf bis utv,iutis hnh
u, o Tie T. material element iu discovering this
intent
The pruof must saiisi, yy.u minds icyoni o. r,.a
, snnnhlc doubt that the defendant il guilty oi the
unrusv changed ne the iuilr| myHt or a. o. either
! ot thuse inclusive Herewith. hgiuU yuu would BE-
! authorized I've hGdinr him guilty ui an ui them.
/ In other words, You mu.i hp morally ,vfuin ni do
lcndhls quit Ell The chrisr uu Witch hc :, huiur
/ uicd aud this certainty g. requisite us a. c,ory
rmdc ui utlvu-o included and ever tulusi tiuu ui
| prui w,Iui iic tn constitute the uGousr % Nnun
thus satisfied of NUi, ndluis guilt ul uu rtsutlf
! with intent :" 'nmmit voluntary mnnsHuFhtrr
| unmcnt in the pcnitrutuy uut vyrc,dinu
| i've fclr, ur Wy imprisonment In she cuunt,
| lnil not muru than ono yVrr uud by Zine uul
| CNcccling ~. iu the discretion 1T The jun. u
| Jon should have % rr 4uuHhc doubt ui dtion'Hnis
| guilt ~ this ononsr yui viii a,lult him uf this
aud pru,vd a. ouusluf whether be- IL guilty ~ NOT
guilt, ufau nsult ~ battery ur both if,nu should
conclude, aud su fud that the defendant BE- guilty
81 an ussnuli of assault aud latter, AMI Won drom
be- dc,crc- punishment bl fine over ~. Nuu " 100
! ~ the amount 10y YOUR q, .ia n Nuu fud him
guilty ~ either ui thrst OK &c. and think a. t
| series ptmishuort by nu" OF .n. ~ l,.l your
Nrrlirt vii ~. guilty ut ns.lut or assault und hot
| try, in which CtHut The cuUU viii IN The amount
| ui BIZ fine mud imprisonment ut H. de- ptiuu.
| u you az not satisfied II d'irIdants ruIlt of
either ct the ufrrslr cltHrsat 20. included u the
| Indictment your Nyfdirt viii De-, not guilty.
4 The defendant usk- The nuuu a. ,hru'y the Iuu
| ' Inc u.f nl q NtlIlf WruiHu D. not conclusive
81 Whlicv, hut uult prsiiWptlNu. amt ~ reach o.
| liberalization the jury should luuk 10 the sut
| rounding rirfuWftinuH. Nhrth.ruf UHt the wrutuu
wus gotten tur the particular nHi uf whether "a ~.
! suth o. L. universally tgfntst Dos Iullfrutlu d. %
pirt III their uutht 10 ull ui ti.,r, circumstance.
tLy iufl should luul iu uHHhiuF their tuurlusiuua
" thr jury j. ~ ANY duuht nitHut the lntpu
tuus ~ The defendant and the motive governing
him nt the time TIE blow Nus stfiuivu. UUHi ui
Fuui rNnmrtrr u suuUF tu Whirl u may luuL
tu uid thrm Toe a. -fuuriUslua
q. N the jury believe tnIW The UnuUi that Young
| adE Wa down uu The rrIuud Hl The i,rt uf thu dt
| PENDANT uud the crowd vIs sHrfiuH nid pna# inl
| over lee uud that she WHs iu dHnsGf ul death uf
! great hudlly hHuh. the defendant world D., MsiI
tel he uiur sufficient inr, a. stop The tiuNl even
in the extent oi striking thrm fbC 0uuli uui Hiur
| them UthDrNi.y
Under the Law ~ T'uurssor uo Wuris Justify q
bluN, nud 10 the iun h,iptts tlIU drrulIut struck
| The prosecutor h. e. ent uuyihIur the ppurHuiuf
| hat aid. De- would b. Sc IiiN. aud lu drtrruuIuT
tis QUESTION The lufy should lnuk ruriuil, 90 tiir
Particular liuu when The hluW Was riNtu tu rulIlf
! thrm a. determine The motive anil iuirUf ui De-
iruHniIi. uud whether ID see given o. UtHut 600 In
'ulf ur iu Wuuinn dl.rIim ui uuua,uuUuuHs n.
claimed ht tIy ftc. or whether IL WHs rIftu Doe HI
hun'ri cndAt"r a. protect uihrr inIm death cd
ruTt hrlily harm.
% "u" irr,lu se,- anq'h'r Ice rpbt isuI in dan
Err ri death ~ rrui hudiIy harm. IL lshis hIuuirn
duly iu usrur them " pusaillr. nui should uHp ul
! legitimate means tunuHmpII.h tlu Utrur. uuI
would hr Justified 10 usiuF Iu.l uH much iurru as i
hy Wa' pt"io' iing his ONu I'nuu.